On 9/12/2024 at 9:54 PM, chrisml said:

Just throwing it out there: Are there characters from 1985 to 1991 that you feel didn't get a fair shake? Characters or performers you think should have lasted longer. I immediately think of Hank Cheyne's Scott and Sally Spencer's MJ.  I'm sure I could think of many but those two come to mind.

I think Nancy should have been back in Bay City in some form. And I thought Clayton Prince as Reuben could have done more. 

I would have been very happy for MJ to return to Bay City but they would definitely have had to sort out the presence of Chad in some way that I doubt Margaret dePriest would have been capable of. 

Unfortunately Scott was a little bit isolated and by the time they wrote him out with Cheryl it didn't feel like his absence left a gap. I wonder if they felt that the return of Jake filled that demographic slot and they didn't need both. But if he had avoided Cheryl and if they had come up with a good storyline for him (maybe finding his birth parents as long as he wasn't a Love triplet) it could have been interesting.

2 hours ago, Xanthe said:

Unfortunately Scott was a little bit isolated and by the time they wrote him out with Cheryl it didn't feel like his absence left a gap. I wonder if they felt that the return of Jake filled that demographic slot and they didn't need both. But if he had avoided Cheryl and if they had come up with a good storyline for him (maybe finding his birth parents as long as he wasn't a Love triplet) it could have been interesting.

I would argue the problem with Scott, is the same issue with Jamey and Dennis, it is difficult to write a compelling prince-charming, aka a rich good guy.  A rich good guy has zero inherent conflict on a soap. They are generally just the center of a triangle for two more compelling female characters.  Their main attributes are their wealth and their hair.   So, they become interchangeable as new wealthy families pop into town.  From AMC's Greg Nelson to GH's Derek Barrington, the soap universe is littered with similar dudes.  And Peter Bergman's shift from AMC to Y&R proves that more often than not it is the character, and not the actor, that is the problem. 

3 minutes ago, j swift said:

I would argue the problem with Scott, is the same issue with Jamey and Dennis, it is difficult to write a compelling prince-charming, aka a rich good guy.  A rich good guy has zero inherent conflict on a soap. They are generally just the center of a triangle for two more compelling female characters.  Their main attributes are their wealth and their hair.   So, they become interchangeable as new wealthy families pop into town.  From AMC's Greg Nelson to GH's Derek Barrington, the soap universe is littered with similar dudes.  And Peter Bergman's shift from AMC to Y&R proves that more often than not it is the character, and not the actor, that is the problem. 

There wasn't even a great deal of emphasis on either of them being rich, which was worse. Lemay likely would have focused on wealth and class differences. He didn't get to write what he wanted with Michael Randolph, but he did focus on class differences between Michael's family and his wife Molly Ordway. There could have been a class difference between Scott, who grew up isolated and wealthy, and struggling Cheryl, who was the last of a broken family. 

Once they decided not to make him Donna's long lost son, the character had no real purpose. He and Cheryl were likeable but completely generic. I'm not surprised they had such non-exits. If not for the strike they probably would have had even less to do as Cheryl at least had a fling with John.

Edited September 14, 20241 yr by DRW50

18 minutes ago, j swift said:

I would argue the problem with Scott, is the same issue with Jamey and Dennis, it is difficult to write a compelling prince-charming, aka a rich good guy.  A rich good guy has zero inherent conflict on a soap. They are generally just the center of a triangle for two more compelling female characters.  Their main attributes are their wealth and their hair.   So, they become interchangeable as new wealthy families pop into town.  From AMC's Greg Nelson to GH's Derek Barrington, the soap universe is littered with similar dudes.  And Peter Bergman's shift from AMC to Y&R proves that more often than not it is the character, and not the actor, that is the problem. 

Interesting analysis of the rich prince charming archetype, and I don't fundamentally disagree.  But I think a good writer would choose to give that character another kind of conflict.  George Reinholt's Steve Frame for example -- Lemay gave Steve conflict with his past, and escaping his childhood.  That gave Steve enough subtext to keep him interesting.  Regarding Jamie and Dennis -- Jamie's internal conflict should have come from his mother's history and his growing up with a mostly absent father.  And for Dennis, focusing on Iris's meddling and control issues could have kept that character interesting.  But I do agree, rich prince charmings can tend to be boring and replaceable, unless the writer intentionally creates some kind of believable internal conflict for the character.  Frankly, all soap opera characters need some kind of subtext that motivates their decisions.  And Harding Lemay give almost every character on AW something in their past that was shameful, or traumatic, or missing.  Few soap writers do that to the extent Lemay did it.

Edited September 14, 20241 yr by Mona Kane Croft

7 minutes ago, Mona Kane Croft said:

Interesting analysis of the rich prince charming archetype, and I don't fundamentally disagree.  But I think a good writer would choose to give that character another kind of conflict.  George Reinholt's Steve Frame for example -- Lemay gave Steve conflict with his past, and escaping his childhood.  That gave Steve enough subtext to keep him interesting.  Regarding Jamie and Dennis -- Jamie's internal conflict should have come from his mother's history and his growing up with a mostly absent father.  And for Dennis, focusing on Iris's meddling and control issues could have kept that character interesting.  But I do agree, rich prince charmings can tend to be boring and replaceable, unless the writer intentionally creates some kind of believable internal conflict for the character.  Frankly, all soap opera characters need some kind of subtext that motivates their decisions.  And Harding Lemay give almost every character on AW something in their past that was shameful, or traumatic, or missing.  Few soap writers do that to the extent Lemay did it.

Characters on AW in Scott's era had no inner lives. Even Swajeski, mixed as she may have been, had more complex figures.

I think soap's commentary on class through the lens of a medium built on consumer spending is fascinating. 

It is an obvious oversimplification of decades of history but, regardless of writer, the rich families were rarely intact and fraught with conflict (i.e., the Loves and the Corys).  The poor families usually had someone driven by avarice.  As well as a first responder who was invariably the initial victim of an emergency.  

And then the middle class were filled with professionals like doctors and lawyers, and they were the ones that were the happiest.  Homes that bought Prell Shampoo and Rice-a-Roni, had two parents, including a loving mother and a wise father.  They were marketed as the source of nostalgia, and when a change in production occurred we were always mollified by the promise of a return of the middle class. 

So as we discuss AW, I always reflect on what they were selling, and how.  Because for me the theme is always accented by the voiceover, “Another World, brought to you by the makers of…”  It may be a narrow focus, but the enduring aspects of creating a genre to sell grocery items interests me. 

19 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Characters on AW in Scott's era had no inner lives. Even Swajeski, mixed as she may have been, had more complex figures.

I agree about Scott and that era of AW.  And on AMC, even Agnes Nixon gave poor Greg Nelson absolutely no internal conflict or subtext to play.  Frankly I'm surprised the Greg/Jenny romance was as popular and as long-lasting as it was.  And Cliff Warner was very much the same on AMC -- no personal conflict.  But Cliff and Nina had Palmer Courtlandt to deal with.  And Palmer provided enough conflict for the entire town.  LOL.  

From what I understood about the Mckinnon backstory was that Mary was thought to be dead.. and that MJ basically became the mother figure for her younger siblings.. at least when MJ # 1 was playing the role.. and it appeared as though Cheryl had no memory of Mary.. so she was basically parented by her dad.. and MJ to a lesser extent.

Instead of the boring romance with Scott... I think the more interesting story/focus for Cheryl could have been adjusting to having a mom long dead come back into the picture.. and feeling conflicted.  And she could have conflicted over whether to go to Mary or to MJ for advice.

If viewers tuned into AW in 1988 for the first time.. they would have little to no idea that Mary had come back from the dead a year or so before that.  It would have appeared that Vince/Mary had both raised Cheryl since birth.. not that Mary had just come back from the dead on Cheryl was about 18.   Lost potential for character development..imho

Obviously, Scott and Cheryl made a big impression on me since I still remember them 35+ years later even before seeing some of their episodes recently on YT. I thought Scott had so much potential, and it did seem like they were constantly creating storylines for him that went nowhere or they didn't develop. He had chemistry with everyone, but the writers never showed much interest in him.

As Soaplovers points out, they didn't even write the expected beats for Cheryl when her dead mother returns. Cheryl also could have been spun into other stories as she had connections to Nancy, Ada, Mary, etc. Instead, it was nothing. I'm glad Anna Holbrook came on the show, but Alexandra Wilson's Josie was a poor replacement for Cheryl in my opinion. They wanted Denise Alexander, but then did not really do her justice.  IT's bad enough and they had to rewrite/destroy the character of MJ so that Sally Spencer was sabotaged from the beginning. I find 1987 and early 1988 so frustrating on AW because it all just went so flat and icky (Lisa's backstory/the murders/getting rid of Quinn/MJ).

 

The following characters during this time had potential, but the show really never did anything with them:

Caroline Stafford- she was there, but no real story

Vivien- should have been kept on recurring status as long as possible- not for any big storyline but she provided continuity and familiarity with the audience 

Russ and Olivia Matthews- should have stayed in Bay City not only for their historical significance; Olivia’s baby was a Matthews and Cory.  After they left Bay City they were forgotten 

Emma Frame- Elizabeth Ashley’s Emma should have stayed in Bay City and been used as a busybody like Liz Matthews

39 minutes ago, chrisml said:

Obviously, Scott and Cheryl made a big impression on me since I still remember them 35+ years later even before seeing some of their episodes recently on YT. I thought Scott had so much potential, and it did seem like they were constantly creating storylines for him that went nowhere or they didn't develop. He had chemistry with everyone, but the writers never showed much interest in him.

As Soaplovers points out, they didn't even write the expected beats for Cheryl when her dead mother returns. Cheryl also could have been spun into other stories as she had connections to Nancy, Ada, Mary, etc. Instead, it was nothing. I'm glad Anna Holbrook came on the show, but Alexandra Wilson's Josie was a poor replacement for Cheryl in my opinion. They wanted Denise Alexander, but then did not really do her justice.  IT's bad enough and they had to rewrite/destroy the character of MJ so that Sally Spencer was sabotaged from the beginning. I find 1987 and early 1988 so frustrating on AW because it all just went so flat and icky (Lisa's backstory/the murders/getting rid of Quinn/MJ).

Wilson is one of the most generic actors I ever saw on AW - she's closer in spirit to some of the cookie cutter teens they had in the mid-late '90s. She also doesn't remind me of any of the Matthews women. She improves in her last year when they start having her get close to Reuben, but too little, too late.

I know many fans have said Kathleen Layman was a much better MJ. I've barely watched Layman's tenure, but there's just a vulnerability I connect with in Sally Spencer - in some ways she reminds me of Gail Brown, just dizzy in a less '30s way. The prostitution story and the reveal are so grimy, just unbridled misogyny as she weeps and weeps before being sent out of town. 

You're both right that they had so much potential with Cheryl's reaction to Mary's return and gave nothing. On paper, Mary's story should be compelling, but none of it ever is, in spite of Denise Alexander's best efforts. Beyond how smarmy and one-note Reginald is, the whole thing fails due to being history that takes place entirely offcamera. If Kathleen had stayed it might have had more impact, but the show just didn't care about showing how her absence affected Cheryl and MJ.

This is where they should have brought Ben back. Maybe he would have a rivalry with Scott, or he would be revealed as a secret drug addict and Mary keeps his secret out of guilt until he overdoses and nearly dies.

1 hour ago, watson71 said:

The following characters during this time had potential, but the show really never did anything with them:

Caroline Stafford- she was there, but no real story

Vivien- should have been kept on recurring status as long as possible- not for any big storyline but she provided continuity and familiarity with the audience 

Russ and Olivia Matthews- should have stayed in Bay City not only for their historical significance; Olivia’s baby was a Matthews and Cory.  After they left Bay City they were forgotten 

Emma Frame- Elizabeth Ashley’s Emma should have stayed in Bay City and been used as a busybody like Liz Matthews

I agree. I probably would have recast Russ (and I imagine they couldn't afford Elizabeth Ashley long-term - that and she was on Evening Shade). I was so fascinated by Allison Hossack's work as Olivia. She made the character so much more than she could have been.

5 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

Wilson is one of the most generic actors I ever saw on AW - she's closer in spirit to some of the cookie cutter teens they had in the mid-late '90s. She also doesn't remind me of any of the Matthews women. She improves in her last year when they start having her get close to Reuben, but too little, too late.

I know many fans have said Kathleen Layman was a much better MJ. I've barely watched Layman's tenure, but there's just a vulnerability I connect with in Sally Spencer - in some ways she reminds me of Gail Brown, just dizzy in a less '30s way. The prostitution story and the reveal are so grimy, just unbridled misogyny as she weeps and weeps before being sent out of town. 

You're both right that they had so much potential with Cheryl's reaction to Mary's return and gave nothing. On paper, Mary's story should be compelling, but none of it ever is, in spite of Denise Alexander's best efforts. Beyond how smarmy and one-note Reginald is, the whole thing fails due to being history that takes place entirely offcamera. If Kathleen had stayed it might have had more impact, but the show just didn't care about showing how her absence affected Cheryl and MJ.

This is where they should have brought Ben back. Maybe he would have a rivalry with Scott, or he would be revealed as a secret drug addict and Mary keeps his secret out of guilt until he overdoses and nearly dies.

I agree. I probably would have recast Russ (and I imagine they couldn't afford Elizabeth Ashley long-term - that and she was on Evening Shade). I was so fascinated by Allison Hossack's work as Olivia. She made the character so much more than she could have been.

i'm confused. Who is Wilson?

Fun factoid: "Kathleen" had both MJs as her attendants at her wedding. 

Edited September 15, 20241 yr by Contessa Donatella
info

6 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

i'm confused. Who is Wilson?

The first Josie.

15 minutes ago, DRW50 said:

The first Josie.

OH!!! Of course, Alexnadra Wilson. I found her, quite honestly, to be subpar. I'm sure she's a lovely person but I don't think that acting was the best choice for her. Watch me try to be polite. 

10 minutes ago, Contessa Donatella said:

OH!!! Of course, Alexnadra Wilson. I found her, quite honestly, to be subpar. I'm sure she's a lovely person but I don't think that acting was the best choice for her. Watch me try to be polite. 

I thought Alexandra Wilson was adequate at Josie.  But after she got that nose-job about half way through her run on AW, I completely lost faith in her as an actress.  She was already absolutely beautiful, and a pretty good young actor. Why in the world would she ruin her face with a completely unnecessary nose-job?  Of course, her personal decisions were/are none of my business.